It feels very strange and perhaps kind of contradictory to be presented with an individual who is vehemently against the idea of censorship while also using "the majority of people also hold this view" as their primary justification why censorship in this case is wrong.

If the professor held a view that the minority if Americans supported, would there be more or less reason to support censorship in that case? Would the author had been so quick to defend the professor's beliefs if they had not aligned with the majority's (and, likely, the author's, if I am to judge based on the impassioned editorializing present in the article)?

I'm not certain this sort of appeal to the commons argument has a place in the discussion of ethics and clout-driven censorship--that would boil the entire issue down to a simple.tug.of war between which of the two sides can drum up more/louder supporters. That isn't a question of ethics at all.